To refinish or not to refinish?

[Blackstar4003]

I often hear a lot of discussion about refinishing and touching up RIC basses. Doesn't that impact their value? I know with vintage Fender basses it is best to leave them alone regardless of the condition of their finish, (paint chips and all). Wear and tear is often called "mojo". If I attempt to even clean my 72 jazz too much including the metal surfaces it can impact value negatively. In fact I think that is why they are offering the new Fender basses in "road worn" condition. Just curious if this philosophy applies to RIC basses as well.

[s4001]

Yes and no.

I guess that's no help.

In the vintage market, original wear is usually more desirable. That may apply to Rics as well. However with the pure Ric collectors and players, there are some folks who can refinish a guitar and still keep the 'Ric' purists happy. Selection of finish may also play into that, as well. Some are done in better taste and with a nod to the history that will be looked well upon. With Rics it seems to be more 'in the eyes of the buyer.'

[marc61]

Seems like the rule of thumb is that a quality Rick refin ala say aPaul W job is worth it . Where as with Fender people feel a rein is automatically half.

Personally, I wish I could find a Rick bass with some well deserved mojo, that I could afford because, I definitely need one.

[jingle_jangle]

Tom:

I'm restoring both a Blackstar and a Shadow, among a fair number of other vintage Ricks, as this is being written, so to speak. Originality is a factor with Rickenbackers in the following cases:

1. A vintage Rick (say, pre-'74) with nice patina. Leave it alone unless you MUST have your instruments looking "like new".
2. Any Rickenbacker that was celebrity-owned, but only in the case of a top-tier celebrity.
3. Historic Rickenbackers like prototypes and one-offs.

In the situations above, originality is a major part of the instrument's value, both financially and historically speaking. So, consider its worth beyond what it means to you personally--you're dealing with a part of history. In any case, if you're its current owner, it does remain your choice.

What dealers think of refinishes and value, have less effect on Rick sales prices than, say, on those or vintage Fenders, Gibsons, and the like. In short, a pro-refinished or -restored Rickenbacker is worth what a buyer will pay for it, and if the buyer is a Rick enthusiast, and the instrument presents itself well, it won't suffer much.

The problem with refinishing is mostly the number of amateurs who attempt to do it themselves, and who fail or turn out substandard work. Nobody wants junk. This is exacerbated by the visual parallels between bad refinishes and so-called "relics". This popular "look" has encouraged a carelessness among amateur refinishers, who may not strive for perfection as they once did.

Pro refinishers who can do a Rickenbacker to factory standard (so as not to compromise their monetary worth) are very few and far between, but worth seeking out. I'm not necessarily tooting my own horn here, as there are a few others out there who can do a good job. But it's worth the time and trouble to get it done correctly if value, quality, and possibly authenticity are of concern.

[Lefty4001]

Nice summary, Paul. This and the advice I've received about fretboard wear has been great. My 4001 is a from the spring of '74, so it's interesting to read about the small differences from that build-year (tuners, dot markers, etc.). In the seven years I've owned it, the description "great wood, fast neck, deep growl" has about 16 footnotes added to it.

[Blackstar4003]

Paul,
Thanks for the break down and the great information you have provided. I am enjoying the resource forum and learning a great deal from its' members. I appreciate your response!

[doctorwho]

... Personally, I wish I could find a Rick bass with some well deserved mojo, that I could afford because, I definitely need one.

This would fulfill the mojo part:

[kiramdear]